MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the detention order dated 16-2-2001 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short Cofeposa Act, 1974) is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned detention order is sought to be quashed superadded with a command to the opposite parties to release the petitioner forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner, a suspended Super-intendent of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-1 has been detained pursuant to the impugned detention order made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Cofeposa Section) "with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future". The detention related incident took place on 18-7-2000 in which foreign made ball bearings/roller bearings valued at Rs. 3.60 crore and meant for home consumption were seized from the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim, Meerut. The cartons containing bearings were taken out from Inland Container Depot (I.C.D.), Meerut on the evening of 17-7-2000 by filing false declaration regarding value, quantity and description as to the country of origin. On the basis of investigation, search and seizure by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.), a complaint came to be filed amongst others, against the petitioner under Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act of 1962) on 16-9-2000 in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The investigation revealed that the containers of bearings were cleared without examination from I.C.D., Meerut with the active connivance of the petitioner for which he was paid Rs. 10 lakh for each of the two consignments under Bill of Entry No. 00023 dated 5-6-2000 and Bill of Entry No. 00026 dated 17-7-2000 were seized from the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim, Meerut on 18-8-2000. The incident involved evasion of custom duty to the tune of Rs. 90 lakhs. The Competent Authority/Sponsoring Authority sent six sets of proposal vide letter dated 25-9-2001 to the Detaining Authority's office for action under Cofeposa Act, 1974 in respect of S/Sri B.S. Sethi, A.K. Jain, T.N. Mittal, P.K. Gupta and M.K. Gupta (petitioner) alongwith identical sets of material documents relied on by Sponsoring Authority in support of proposal. A show cause notice dated 5-1-2001 came to be issued against the peti?tioner and others under the Act of 1962. Reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice is dated 23-5-2001. The detaining authority after going through various materials placed before it and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the petitioner had arrived at the requisite satisfaction the "inclination and propensity to indulge in smuggling activities" and unless prevented was "likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future" and passed the impugned order dated 16-2-2001. The grounds of detention served on 24-2-2001 shows that it was on consideration of petitioner's "high potentiality and propensity to indulge in such activity in future," that the detaining authority considered it necessary to detain the petitioner under the Cofeposa Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of the goods in fu?ture.

(3.) The complaint for the prosecution of the petitioner was filed on 16-9-2000 but the prosecution proceedings came to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 29-9-2000. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 5-10-2000. The detention order was earlier quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19-4-2001 on the premises that since the petitioner had been suspended on 5-10-2000 and, therefore, he could not continue the prejudicial activities which he was doing by virtue of his office. On the matter being taken to the Supreme Court by Special Leave to Appeal, the Apex Court found that the premises adopted by the Division Bench of this Court was too 'fragile' and 'tenuous' to be approved and accordingly set aside the judgment and order under appeal and remanded the matter to this Court for disposing the same afresh after adverting to the other grounds if urged on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to surrender himself with two weeks of the judgment dated 11/09/2001. Consequent upon the Apex Court judgment the petitioner surrendered on 29-9-2001 and is presently detained and kept in custody in Central Jail, Meerut.